Saturday, May 2, 2009

The Pew Forum recently conducted a survey which shows that 54% people who attend religious services at least once a week support the use of enhanced interrogation (torture) compared to 42% of those who "seldom or never" attend church.

I'm going to take a leap here (and anger some Liberals) and conclude this: those with higher moral standards understand the need to protect the safety of America more than those with lower morality.

The religious attacks in the comments from the CNN "faithful" are priceless.

3 comments:

Because we recognize and oppose evil instead of embracing it in some twisted sense of “diversity” and “tolerance.”

Unlike the Left, we have a working concept of good and evil and know that appeasement of evil breeds more and far worse evil. History alone is proof of this; the rise of Nazi Germany being the prime example. Some argued for tolerance of Hitler because of the unfairness of the Treaty of Versailles, among other things. It was understandable the Germans were upset. So, when the Nazis invaded Poland and instituted the Final Solution, it came as a complete shock to the appeasers. Millions died because of those who would not recognize evil and chose to look the other way in the name of “tolerance,” “compassion” and “peace.”

We recognize that an enemy who engages/has engaged in far worse methods of “interrogation” even before we adopted water boarding and sleep deprivation, is evil and not some poor, misunderstood unfortunates who would love us if only we treated them better. We have a clear understanding that there is a very real, moral difference between making someone think they’re drowning and and drilling holes in their head, hands, legs, feet and so on with a power drill. There is a clear, moral distinction between depriving a terrorist of sleep and slowly sawing a person’s head off. There is also a clear, moral difference between placing women’s underwear on a detainee’s head and killing a hostage, dismembering, mutilating and burning the body, then dumping it in the street for dogs and other animals to eat. These things are no where near moral equivalency in the real world. Our enemies know this but our alleged friends don’t.

We also recognize that it is better to have a definitive set of morals than to have none at all. It is better to try and fail to live up to a high moral standard than it is to have a morality that is defined by political expediency, the calendar date or the most current, fashionable philosophies. Setting the bar low, guarantees even lower results. If you are shooting for a high goal and fail, you end up in a far better place than if you have no goal whatsoever.

It should be mentioned here that failure to live up to one’s moral code is not proof of hypocrisy but rather proof of one’s humanity. Humans are not perfect. We make mistakes. But to deny this fact and avoid hypocrisy at all costs by not having any standards to live by, is far, far worse as we discovered in 1930.

One final thought: if hypocrisy is the worst sin ever, what can be said of people who hold themselves to no set standard of any kind but hold everyone else to a standard of perfection?

Imagine that. Yet another Lib who makes an outrageous, anonymous claim about the Right. What intellect! What insight! What courage! Sir (or Madam), if you had a shred of any of the attributes mentioned above, you would have the guts to identify yourself and thereby stand by your wild, unsubstantiated claim. But then, you Libs don't have to explain yourselves, do you? You're superior in every way to Conservatives and owe them no explanations. You're a veritable Master Race, aren't you? You may not say those words, but that is most certainly the implication. Zeig heil, baby!